Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 1 of 30

Exhibit 3

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 2 of 30

¯ COLONIE, NEW YORK SITE TREATABILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT

PRESENTED TO:

CF KAISE
1130 Central Avenue Albany, New York 12205 (518) 482~'0~237

PRESENTED BY:

ENVIRONMENTAL.
¯~ ERVIC ES

3145 Medlock Bridge Road Norcross, Georgia 30071 (770) 242-4090

MARCH 1999

GO00110

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 3 of 30

COLONIE, NEW YORK SITE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0

INTRODUCTION

' .1

1.1 1.2 1.3
2.0

TERMS OF REFERENCE ....................................1 SCOPE OF WORK .......................................... 1
REPORT ORGANIZATION ................................... 2

PHASE I: MATERIAL HANDLING AND CHARACTERIZATION ......... 3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 SOIL RECEIPT ............................................. 3 RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING & SAFETY PROTOCOLS ....... 3 UNTREATED SOU., HOMOGEN-!ZATION ...................... 4 UNTREATED SOIL SCREENING ......................... '.. , . 5 ' UNTREATED SOIL COM~OSITING & CHARACTERIZATION .... 5

3,0

,...8 PHASE II: PRELIMXNARY STAB..,~._.t,ZATION TREATMENT .......... 3.1 3.2 3.3 OVERVIEW .................................... ' ........... ,8 8 PRELIMINARY STABILIZATION TREATMENT ................ 9 TREATED EVALUATIONS ........... ................. ¯ ......

4.0

12 PHASE HI: CANDIDATE STABILIZATION TREATMENT ..............
4.1 4.2 4.3

12 OVERVIEW .............................................. 12 CANDIDATE MIXTURE DEVELOPMENT ...................... 13 TREATED EVALUATIONS ................................. 15

QUALITY ASSURA_NCE / QUALITY CONTROL .....................

16 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .......................................

GOOOlII

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 4 of 30

COLONIE, NEW YORK SITE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

TABLES APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Untreated - Total and TCLP Lead Analyses Untreated - Analytical and Geoteehnical Characterization Table 2 Preliminary - Mixture Development and Moni~oring (001 to 007) Table 3 Table 4 Preliminary - Mixture Development and Monitoring (008 to 014) Preliminary - Total and TCLP Lead Analyses (008 to 014) Table 5 Table 6 Candidate- Mixture Development and Monitoring (015 to 021) Candidate - Total Lead, TCLP Lead and MaterialpH Analyses (015 to 021) Table 7

LIST OF APPENDICES .~:~-.-~ Appendix A Chains of Custody Appendix B Untreated Material Characterization Appendix C Preliminary Stabilization Treatment Appendix D Candidate Stabilization Treatment

ii
G000112

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 5 of 30

COLONIE, NEW YORK SITE TREATABILITY STUDY FINAL REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

K_iber Environmental Services, Inc. (Kiber) prepared this report as a presentation of the final results for the treatability study conducted on low le.velradioactive soils sampled from the Colonie, New York Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) site (the site). The treatability study was conducted for ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (Kaiser) as a part of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Total Environmental Restoration Contract (TERC). The study was performed in an effort to identify a cost effective stabilization treatment design capable of reducing the leachability of lead to below theToxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) Iimit of 5.0 milligrams per liter (mg~). The testing was performed in general accordance with the scope of work developed by Kiber and date~.3 January 1999.
SCOPE OF WORK

1.2

The primary objectives of the treatability study were to 1) identify a cost effective stabilization treatment design capable of successfully reducing the leachability of lead to below the TCLP regulatory limit, 2) maintain soil-like properties to allow for future excavation and disposal of the treated material, and 3) limit the volumetric expansion of the treated material as a result of reagent addition. Testing was conducted in three separate phases. The first phase involved untreated characterization of the soils received from the site. The second phase of the treatability study included the development and evaluation of preliminary treatment designs. During phase three, Candidate Stabilization Treatment, K_iber optimized and evaluated additional mixtures based on the results of preliminary stabilization treatment. Untreated soil characterization involved the determination of both physical and chemical properties of the untreated soil sampled from the site. Preliminary stabilization treatment included the evaluation of both "traditional" and "phosphate based" treatment designs. The candidate mixture development phase of the treatability study included the
3033/3033_I02

Page 1
GO00113

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 6 of 30

optimization of treatment designs identified during preliminary stabilization treatment. Treated materials were evaluated through total and TCLP lead analyses as well as volumetric expansion.

1.3

-I~PORT ORGANIZATION

This report presents discussions pertaining to the treatrgent processes performed by Kiber and a discussion of the results achieved during each testing phase. Section 2.0 of this report presents a complete discussion of the material receipt and handling, a summary of the untreated soil characterization testing performed, and the results of these characterization analyses. Section 3.0 presents the methods and results utilizedfor the preliminary stabilization treatment phase and Section 4.0 presents the results of the candidate stabilization treatment phase of the treatability study. An overview of the Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA]QC) procedures followed by Kiber throughout the treatability testing is presented in Section 5.0. A discussion of the results of treatability testing are presented in Section 6.0. Summary tables presenting the results of all testing follow the text. Complete analytical and physical properties data sheets are included in the appendices which also follow the text.

3033/3033_102

Page 2

GO00114

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 7 of 30

2.0 PHASE h MATERIAL HANDLING AND CHARACTERIZATION

2.1

. SOIL RECEIPT

On 20.ffanuary..1999 Kiber received two coolers, and two wooden boxes. One co.0.l.er contained a 5-gallon plastic bucket and one cooler contained four 500 milliliter (ml) amber jars. Each of the wooden boxes contained a shelby tube.. The amber jars were identified as CTS001 composite material from stockpiles 5 and 6. The 5 gallon bucket and shelby tubes were labeled CTS Comp 1 and were identified as composite material from the DA and Patron Lake test pits, As indicated by Mr. Richard Eaton of Kaiser, the CTS001 material was identified as the material with the highest le.ad concentrations and the highest radiation levels. The material in the 5 gallon bucket and shelby tubes labeled CTS Comp 1 contained lower lead and radiation levels. The samples were delivered at ambient temperature via A.irbome Express with chains of custody and custody seals present. A copy of these chains of custody are presented in Appendix A. Upon receipt, the untreated materials were placed in KAber's radioactive storage room until testing was initiated. K.iber received additional untreated materials from Kaiser on 15 February 1999. These materials, were duplicate samples of those ~e_~eived previously in an effort to obtain samples with higher concentrations of both total and leachable lead. The materials received inel~lded two 500 ml amber jars and one. 5 gallon bucket. The amber jars were labeled CTS002-1 and CTS002-2 and were identified as materials from stockpiles 5 and 6 at the site. The 5 gallon bucket was labeled CTS002-3 and.was identified as composite material from the DA and Patron Lake test pits. The samples were again delivered at ambient temperature via Airborne Express with a chain of custody and custody seal present. A copy of the chain of custody is also presented in Appendix A. RAD!OLOGICAL MONITORING AND SAFETY PROTOCOLS

2.2

As indicated by Kaiser, the materials to be evaluated exhibited low level radioactivity due to the presence of depleted uranium. Therefore, upon receipt and prior to opening any containers, each was surveyed for radioactive activity with a Victoreen Model 190 Radiation Meter. Readings were at or below background levels of 50 counts per minute (cpm). Upon opening each of the containers a one gram sample was obtained from each and was frisked to obtain the radiological activity present. The samples labeled CTS001,. CTS002-1 and CTS002-2 had readings r~ging from 3,900 to 7,400 cpm. The material labeled CTS Comp 1 and CTS002-3 resulted in readings of 150 and 166 cpm, respectively. Note that the untreated materials from stockpiles 5 and 6 had the appearance
3033/3033_102

Page 3 .

GO00115

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 8 of 30

of a dark brown sandy soil. The material from the DA and Patron Lake test pits was'a lighter brown color, slightly sandy and contained some rocks and root debris.

Radioactivity surveys of both the shipping containers and untreated materials were performed in accordance with K_iber's low level radioactive material license issued by the State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Note that all treatability testing and storage of the ~'adioactive materials for this treatability study were performed in Kiber's designated radiation laboratory. Additionally, all treat.ability testing was performed within a fame hood. Kiber followed all decontamination and personnel monitoring protocols that .are required by the State of Georgia Department of Natural Resources and Kiber's radioactive material license.

2.3

UNTREATED SOIL HOMOGENIZATION

Once initial radiological surveying of the material was complete Kiber proceeded with homogenization of the untreated materials. As requested by Mr. Richard Eaton of Kaiser, Kiber initially homogenized all the containers separately to ensure uniform materials for testing. Note that the shelby tube samples were not utilized for any treatability testing. To perform homogenization, the soil from eaq~:',_eontainer was placed into a stainless steel mixing basin. Each soil was then blended with stainless steel utensils until visually homogenous, a time period of 20 to 30 minutes, and returned to the original sample container. As a part of homogenization, any large and agglomerated particles were broken into smaller, more manageable sizes. For bench-scale testing, Kiber typically removes all particles and debris larger than 0.5 inches in diameter. This.process is performed in order to 1) simulate potential full-scale particle size reduction, and 2) ensure that the material is practical for laboratory analysis. Kiber's experience indicates that contaminants are generally concentrated on the free-grained particles; therefore, laboratory testing on material of less than 0.5 inches in diameter typically presents a worst-case contamination scenario. During homogenization, Kiber did observe a small quantity of oversized materials in the test pit samples. However, these materials were not removed since only a small quantity was present and was avoided for treatability testing. After homogenization, the materials were placed back into the original containers and into storage in Kiber's radioactive materials laboratory.

303313033__102

Page 4

GO00116

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 9 of 30

2.4

UNTREATED SOIL SCREENING

After homogenization, Kiber sampled a representative aliquot, of the untreated soils labeled CTS001 and CTS002-1 for lead screening analyses. Note that all analytical testing was performed by an analytical laboratory Certified for performing testing on radioactive materials. Un~eated chemical characterization is an essential component of the treatability study. The establishment of the baseline level of contamination is important for comparing and determining the effectiveness of the. treatment processes. The ' characterization analyses allowed Kiber.to 1) determine the extent of contamination in the soil received from the site, 2) confirm that the soil was similar to that expected at the site, 3) establish a baseline level ofcontarnination, and 4) identify reagents and addition rates appropriate for treatment of the site soil. K_iber subjected each untreated sample, labeled CTS001 and CTS002-1 to the following analytical analyses:
Total Lead TCLP Lead EPA Method 6010B EPA Methods 1311/6010B

The results of total and TCLP lead analyses performed on the untreated samples are included in Table 1. Appendix B includes complete data reports for the analyses. The results of analytical analyses indicates that:fl~ sample labeled CTS001 had a total lead concentration of 943 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) and a TCLP lead concentration of below detectable limits. The sample labeled CTS002 had a total lead concentration of 8,660 mg!kg and a TCLP lead concentration of 28.2 milligrams per liter (rag/L). Since the sampled labeled CTS002 had a much higher total and leachable 1earl concentration, and represented a worst case soil, this sample was selected for all further treatability testing.

2.5

UNTREATED SOIL COMPOSITING AND CHARACTERIZATION

Upon receipt ofhhe CTS001 and CTS Composite 1 material, and prior to receiving total and TCLP lead results for this material, Kaiser instructed Kiber to develop a composite material with the four 500 ml sample jars labeled CTS001 and the CTS Comp 1 material. This composite was developed by placing the contents of the 5 gallon bucket labeled CTS Comp I into a stainless steel mixing basin. The contents of the four amber jars were then added to the mixing basin and blended until visually homogenous, a time period of approximately 20 to 30 minutes. This material was labeled Spiked Composite #1. Note that this material was then subjected to untreated characterization analyses prior to receipt of initial analytical screening results in order to expedite the time frame of the treatability study. However, upon receipt of the total and TCLP lead results of the CTS001 material, Kaiser indicated to K_iber that the results were not. representative of the worst case
3033/3033__102

Page 5

GO00117

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 10 of 30

untreated material present at the site. Therefore, Kaiser forwarded an additional sample identified as CTS002 and a second composite labeled Spiked Composite #2 was developed.

Spiked Composite #2 was developed by placing the two 500 ml amber sample jars labeled CTS002-1 and CTS002-2 into the 5 gallon bucke~ labeled CTS002-3. Compositing was performed by placing the contents of CTS002-3 into a large stainless steel mixing basin. The contents of the amber jars labeled CTS002-1 and .CTS002-2 were placed into the mixing basin and homogenized until visually homogenous, a time of approximately 20 to 30 minutes. After compositing Was complete, Kiber submitted an aliquot of the Spiked Composite #2 material for analytical characterization analyses. Specifically, an aliquot was subjected to the following analytical analyses: Total Lead TCLP Lead Material pH
EPA Method 6010B EPA Methods 1311/6010B EPA Method 9045C

Geotechnieal characterization provides basie.~information on the handling properties of the contaminated soil. Physical properties are used to prepare cost estimates and design specifications with regard to full-scale treatment, material excavation, tr~zL~port and storage. The information generated is critical to making sound engineering decisions. Kiber performed the following geoteehnical evaluations on..a].iquots of the Spiked Composite #2 material in accordance with the referenced test methods: Moisture Content Bulk Density
ASTM D 2216 ASTM D 5057

Note that these characterization analyses were previously performed on Spiked Composite #1 in an effort to expedite the treatability study. Therefore, the results of untreated material characterization analyses performed on both Spiked Composite #1 and Spiked Composite #2 are presented in Table 2. Complete analytical and physical data reports for all untreated soil characterization are included in Appendix B.

The results of untreated materiaI characterization, as included in Table 2, indicates that the Spiked Composite #1 material had a total lead concentration of 2,660 mg/kg and a leachable lead concentration of 18.7 mg/L. The Spiked Composite #1 material had an average material pH value of 8.0 s.u., an average dry-basis moisture content of 17%, a bulk density of 124 lbs/ft3, and an average bulk specific gravity of 2.0. The Spiked
3033/3033_!02

Page 6

G000118

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 11 of 30

Composite #2 material had a total lead concentration of 3,~A0 mg}kg and a TCLP lead concentration of 32.9 mg/L. The Spiked Composite #2 had an average material pH value of 7.8 standard units (s.u.), an average dry-basis moisture content of 16%, an average bulk density of 121 pounds per cubic foot (Ibs/ft3) and an averag~ bulk spscific gravity of 1.9.

~033/3033_102

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICF-.S, INC.

Page 7

GO00119

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 12 of 30

3~0 PIffASE II: PRELIMINARY STABILIZATION TREATMENT

3.1

OVERVIEW

The preliminary, stabilization phase of the treatability study was performed in an effort to. identify both "traditional" and "phosphate based" treatment designs that may be capable of achieving the TCLP lead regulatory requirement of 5.0.mg/L. Note that as requested by Kaiser, Kiber outlined treatment designs that would retain soil-like characteristics after treatment since Kaiser had indicated that the material would later be excavated and ddsposed of off-site. Initially, as requested by Kaiser, IGber developed a round of mixtures with Spiked Composite #1 in an effort to further expedite .the time frame of the treatability study. However, once the total and TCLP lead results of Spiked Composite #1 were presented to Kaiser, Kaiser concluded that the CTS001 arid Spiked Composite #1 material did not representative a worst case material at the site. Therefore, upon receipt and after compositing of the CTS002 material, as discussed in previous sections of this report, Kiber developed the identical treatment designs using the Spiked Composite #2 material. Treated materials were allowed to cure for.~i~period of 7 days over which .time penetrometer strength testing was performed. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of stabilization treatment, the treated materials were subjected to both total and TCLP lead analyses after 7 days of curing.

3.2

PRELIMINARY STABILIZATION TREATMENT

Kiber and Kaiser outlined a total of 7 mixture designs during this phase of testing. Reagents evaluated during this phase of testingincluded Type I Portland cement, hydrated lime, Class "C" fly ash, a eombination of ferrous sulfate and a 20% phosphoric acid solution and a combination of ferrous sulfate and sodium carbonate. For themixtures developed with cement, fly ash and hydrated lime, the reagents were slurried with water and added to the untreated material and blended. For the remaining two mixtures, detailed mixture development protocols are presented below. Mixture development was performed by placing an aliquot of Spiked C0mposite#1 into a blending chamber. The specified reagent was slurried with the specified water addition rate and added to the mixture. The mixture was blended at a rate of approximately 40 to 60 rotations per minute (rpm) until visually homogenous, a time period of approximately 60 to 90 seconds. Note that the mixture developed with ferrous sulfate and phosphoric
3033~033_102

Page 8

GO00120

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 13 of 30

acid was develot~ed by first adding the acid and blending. After acid addition, ferrous sulfate was added dry to the mixture. The final mixture developed with sodium carbonate and a ferrous sulfate slurry was developed by first adding a 50% ferrous sulfate slurry developed with water, to the mixture. Once homogenous, sodium carbonate was added to the mixture and blended. Note that these same mixtures were developed with Spiked Composite #2 in an identical manner to the previously discussed protocols. Potable tap water was used for the mixtures since distilled or deionized water is not practical for use during full-scale remediation. Kiber selected water addition rates based on experience in treating similar materials and the need to maintain soil-like properties. A reported value for the percent water indicates that the reagents were slurried with that quantity of water, relative to the initial quantity of spiked composite material. For clarity, note that the "percent reagent" and "percent water" are based on the total weight of the reagent relative to the total weight of the spiked composite material. For example, in a mixture with 5% addition of cement and 7.5% addition of water, 10 grams of cement was slurred with 15 grams of water and added to 200 grams of spiked composite material.
The mixtures developed with Spiked Composite #1 are included in Table 3 and the mixtures developed with Spiked Composite #2 are included in Table 4. These tables include K.iber's mixture number, reagent typ.~, and reagent and water addition rates.

3.3

TREATED EVALUATIONS

After mixture development, Kiber placed the treated materials into cylindrica! molds for curing. Throughout the curing process, the treated materials were evaluated through penetrometer strength testing. Penetrometer analyses are screening tests that were performed on each mixture to determine setting and strength properties of the treated materials. Penetrometer analyses were performed with a Brainard Kilman S-170 pocket penetrometer. The pocket penetrometer is a hand held instrument commonly used during. field drilling tests to estimate unconfined compressive strength of soils. The penetrometer is calibrated by the manufacturer in increments of 0.25 tons per square foot (tons/~) with a maximum reading of 4.5 tons/ft2 (63 lbs/in2). The results of pocket penetrometer testing performed on the treated materials developed with Spiked Composite #1 (mixtures 001 through 007) after 1, 2, 3 and 7 days of curing are included in Table 3. Penetrometer results of the treated materials developed with Spiked Composite #2 (008 through 014) are included in Table 4.

3033i3033__102

Page 9
G000121

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 14 of 30

The results of pocket penetrometer testing performed on the materials developed with Spiked Composite #1 (001 through 007), as included in Table 4, indicate that only three treated materials exhibited penetrometer strengths of greater than 0.5 tons/ftz after 7 days of curing. Specifically, the mixture developed with Type I Portland cement exhibited a penetrometer strength of 1.5 tons/ftz after 7 days of curing. The mixture developed a 5% addition rat~ of hydrated lime exhibited a strength of 1.0 tons/~ after, 7 days of curing and. the mixture d~,eloped with a 20% addition rate of Class "C" fly ash exhibited a penetrometer strength of 0.5 tons/fl~. All additional tre.ated materials exhibited penetrometer strengths of less than 0.5 tons/~ after 7 days of curing. The results ofpenetrometer testing performed on the materials developed with Spiked Composite #2 (008 through 014) are included in Table 4: Specifically, the material developed with Type I Portland cement reached a penetrometer strength of 2.0 tons/~ after 7 days ofc.uring, and the mixtures developed with 10 and 20% Class "C" fly ash reached 1.0 and 1:5 tonsl~ after 7 days of curing, respectively. All other mixtures exhibited penetmmeter strength values of less than 0.5 tons/~ after 7 days of curing. Note that after seven days of curing, the mixtures developed with the Spiked Composite #1 material (001 through 007) were not evaluated through analytical evaluations since the CTS001 and Spiked Composite #1 untreat..e~d_..:materiaIs were identified by Kaiser as not representative of the worst case materials at the site. Therefore, only the materials developed with Spiked Composite #2 untreated material (mixtm'es 008 through 014) were further evaluated.
Once the Spiked Composite #2 treated materials (mixtures 008 through 014) reached 7 days of curing, an aliquot of each was submitted for analytical evaluation. Analytical evaluations performed on each of the treated materials included total and TCLP lead analyses in accordance with EPA Methods 1311/6010B. The results of total and TCLP lead analyses are included in Table 5. Analytical data reports are included in Appendix C.

¯ The results of total and TCLP !ead analyses, as included in Table 5, indicate that all treated materials, except for the mixture developed with 20% Class "C" fly ash, exhibited total lead concentrations ranging from 1,960 to 2,350 mg/kg. The mixture developed with Class "C" fly ash exhibited a total lead concentration of 16,400 mg/kg. Note that stabilization treatment is not designed to reduce total lead concentrations. A review of the TCLP lead concentrations presented in Table 5 indicates that two treated materials leached lead below the TCLP regulatory limit of 5.0 mg/L. Specifically, the mixture developed with a 10% hydrated lime addition rate exhibited a TCLP lead concentration of 4.41 rag/L, and the mixture developed with a combination of ferrous
3033~033_10~
KIBER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.

Page 10

G000122

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 15 of 30

sulfate and pho~horic acid exhibited a TCLP lead concentration of 0.526 rag/I_,. The mixture developed with ferrous sulfate and sodium carbonate exhibited a TCLP lead concentration of 5.26 mg/L. All other materials exhibited TCLP lead concentrations ranging from 7.02 to 21.4 mg/L.

A review of the results of Preliminary Stabilization treatment indicates that the mixture developed wi~ a.10% addition rate of hydrated lime and the mixture developed with a combination of ferrous sulfate and phosphoric acid achieved the TCLP regulatory limits. Based on these results, Kiber outlined additional mixtures for further evaluation during Phase III: Candidate Stabilization Treatment.

3033/3033__102

Page 11

G000123

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 16 of 30

4.0 PHASE III: CANDIDATE STABILIZATION TREATMENT

4.1

OVERVIEW

.Phase III Candidate Stabilization Treatment was performed to further optimize and evaluate treatr~ent designs that were proven successful during Phase H. During this phase of treatment KAber evaluated both "traditional" and "ph.osphate based" treatment designs. Note that, as indicated by Kaiser, hydrated lime is not readily available near the site. Therefore, K.iber obtained a sample of agricultural lime fi-om Cushing Stone, Inc. and evaluated its treatment potential in the place of hydrated lime. Treated materials were evalu.ated through total and TCLP lead analyses, as well as volumetric expansion.

Note that during this phase of testing, treatment designs were developed in an effort to ¯ optimize cost and treatment effectiveness, while maintaining soil-like properties and minimizing volumetric expansion of the untreated material as a result of reagent addition. These physical characteristics will assist in reducing the cost of excavation and disposal of the material after treatment.
4.2

CANDIDATE MIXTURE DEVELOPNIENT

As previously mentioned, Candidate Stabilization Treatment included the development of ' a total of seven mixtures with the Spiked Composite #2 material that were proven successful during Phase II. Reagents evaluated during this phase of testing included agricultural lime, phosphoric acid solution, a combination of phosphoric acid solution and ferrous sulfate and a combination of phosphoric acid so]ution, ferrous sulfate and fly ash.

Mixtures were developed in accordance with previously discussed protocols with the exception that these mixtures were developed without water addition. For this round of mixture development, water addition was not necessary since five of the mixtures utilized phosphoric acid solution which provided enough moisture for sufficient mixing. The mixtures developed with agricultural lime were developed in an effort to buffer the pH of the soil to reduce the leachability of lead. Therefore, for these two mixture designs, water was not necessary. The mixtures developed by Kiber are presented in Table 6. This table includes Kiber's mixture numbers, material type, reagent type, and reagent and water addition rates.

3033/3033_102

Page 12

G000124

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 17 of 30

4.3

TREATED EVALUATIONS

After mixture development, the treated materials were placed into cylindrical molds for penetrometer testing and volumetric expansion. Note that since the phosphate-based treatment and the agricultural lime reagents do not require a cure time, the time frame of the study was expedited for these mixtures. After compacting, each of the treated materials was tested for penetrometer strength. Aider penetrometer testing, each of the treated materials were evaluated for volumetric expansion.. The volumetric expansion due to the addition of treatment reagents was performed by compacting a pre-weighed aliquot of Spiked Composite #2 material into a cylindrical mold. The volume of the untreated soil was measured and recorded. The soil was then removed from the mold and treated in accordance with the protocols outlined above. Upon completion of the treatment process, the material was again compacted into the same type of sample mold. After compaction, the volume of the treated material was again measured and recorded. The percent volumetric expansion or shrinkage was determined based on the following equation [('Final Volume - Initial Volume) / Initial Volume]* 100. The results ofpenetrometer strength testi~..~.and volumetric expansion are included in Table 6. A review of the results indicates that the materials treated with agricultural lime had penetrometer strength values of 4.0 ton~lft2. All remaining treated materials exhibited penetrometer strengths of less than 0.5 tons/f~. Volumetric expansion values ranged from 11 to 37%. Generally, higher reagent addition rates resulted in higher volumetric expansion values. After volumetric expansion and penetrometer strength testing, each of the treated materials were sampled and submitted for total lead ,TCLP lead and material pH analyses in accordance with previous!y referenced test methods. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 7. Complete analytical data reports are included in Appendix D.

A review of the results of total and TCLP lead analyses, as presented in Table 7, indicate that all treated materials had total lead concentrations ranging from !,580 mg/kg to 3,040 mg/kg. All treated materials except for those developed with agricultural lime achieved

303313033__102

G000125

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 18 of 30

the TCLP regulatory limit of 5.0 mg/L. Specifically, the TCLP lead concentrations for these mixtures were as follows: Addition Rate (%) 5 I0 5/I 10 / 2.5 / 15 5 / 2.5 / 15 T_C/2_Lead 0.330 mg/L 0.0797 mgiL 0.0441 mg/L 0.0362 mg/L 0.458 mg/L

20% Phosphoric Acid Solution 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution 20% H3PO4 / F~rrous Sulfate 20% H3PO4 / Ferrous Sulfate / Fly Ash 20% H~PO4 / Ferrous Sulfate / Fly Ash

The results of material pH analyses performed on the candidate stabilization treated materials, as presented in Table 7, indicates that the mixtures developed with 15 and 20% agricultural lime had pH values of 9.03 and 9.28 s.u., respectively. The mixtures treated with a 5% and 10% addition rate of a 20% phosphoric acid solution had material pH values of 4.90 and 3.92 s.u., respectively. The addition of a combination of phosphoric acid and ferrous sulfate resulted in a material pH value of 4.87 s.u. The mixtures developed with a combination of phosphoric acid solution, ferrous sulfate and fly ash exhibited material pH values of 8.12 and 9.15 s.u. A review of these results indicates that the p.r.e..yiously listed treated materials all achieved the TCLP regulatory limit of 5.0 mg/L. No~ihat based on cost effectiveness, the addition of phosphoric acid solution alone would be the optimum treatment design. Additionally, since the leachable lead concentrations of the phosphoric acid treated materials were well below the TCLP regulatory limit, the addition rate or concentration of phosphoric acid ~ may be further reduced to further optimize cost effectiveness.

3033/3033_102

Page 14

G000126

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 19 of 30

5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE ! QUALITY CONTROL

Kiber maintains strict Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) programs as part of Kiber's standard operating procedures. The QA/QC program for the Colonic Site Treatability s.t..udy had two primary objectives: 1) to validate the quality of each analysis conducted in accordance with the referenced protocols, and 2) to evaluate the effectiveness of each treatment process on the chemical and physical treatment of the site soil. The treatability and analytical testing procedures implemented throughout the study were known, tested and approved EPA and ASTM methodologies.

The primary objectives of the treatability QAJQC progr.am wei'e to validate the quality of each analysis and treatment evaluation, and to evaluate the effectiveness and variability of the treatment processes on the site soil. These objectives were achieved for treatability testing through 1) calibration of the associated equipment, and 2) supervision and review by qualified technical personnel. All treatability testing was supervised by personnel experienced in both laboratrry evaluations and full-scale application of the.treatment pro.cesses. All equipment associated with the treatab.i.~:t:y testing is calibrated on a regular basis, as specified.by the manufacturer2 Daily monitoring, and calibration was also performed on common laboratory equipment including pH meters, ovens and balances. The analytical QA]QC program was developed in accordance with EPA's Level rrr QA/QC standarda as outlined in Preparation Aids for the Development of Category Quality Assurance Project Plans. Specifically, the objectives of the QA/QC program were to ensure that the data generated was comparable, accurate, reproducible, valid and defensible. All QA/QC testing was applied to the Co!onie Site treatabiIity study on a batch-specific basis. The program included analyses of method blanks, duplicates, blank spikes, laboratory control samples, and surrogate recoveries, as appropriate. Complete QA/QC data is reported with the full data reports presented in each 6fthe referenced, appendices. Any sample-specific observations are either reported on the appropriate data reports or with the corresponding case narrative included with the respective reports.

3033~033_I02

Page 15
G000127

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 20 of 30

6.0 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

K_iber Environmenta! Services, Inc. performed the Colonic Site treatability study to identify stabilization treatment designs capable of reducing.the concentration of leachable lead to below TCLP regulatory limits. Additional physical criteria for the optimum treatment des~n included a final treated material that retained soil-like characteristics and exhibited a minimal volumetric expansion due to reage.nt addition.

Untreated Material Characterization Kiber performed initial lead screening analyses as we!l as untreated, characterization of the spiked composite materials. The results of lead screening analyses indicated that the CTS001 material Was not representative of the worst case soil at the site. Therefore, an additional sample of untreated material (CTS002) was forwarded by Kaiser and lead screening analyses indicated a more representative worst case soil sample.
Based on screening results, K.iber developed a spiked composite material based on instructions from Kaiser. Characterization of the spiked composite #2 material indicated a total lead concentration of 3,440 mg/kg and a TCLP lead concentration of 32.9 mg/L. Preliminary. Stabilization Once untreated soil characterization was complete, K_iber proceeded to develop seven mixt'm'es based on K.iber's experience in treating similar materials and recommendations from Kaiser. Treatment designs included both "traditional'.' and "phosphate based" reagents and were developed in an effort to reduce leachable lead concentrations. The results indicated that the only treatment designs capable of achieving the TCLP regulatory limits were those developed with hydrated lime and a combination of phosphoric acid and ferrous sulfate.

Candidate Stabilfzation Treatment Based on the results ofpreliminary stabilization treatment, K_iber and Kaiser outlined additional treatment designs for evaluation. Mixtures evaluated included phosphoric acid alone and in combination with ferrous sulfate, and a blend of ferrous sulfate and fly ash. Agricultural lime was also evaluated as a potential alternative for hydrated lime since Kaiser indicated that hydrated lime was not readily available in the area of the site. Kiber developed these mixtures in an effort to reduce leachable lead concentrations to below the TCLP regulatory limits and to develop a final treated material that had a soil-like consistency and exhibited a minimal volumetric expansion. The results of TCLP lead analyses performed on each of the treated materials indicated that all treated materials except for the agricultural lime mixtures leached lead well below the TCLP regulatory
3033/3033_102
ICIER ENVIRON'MEN'rAt. SERVICF~, INC.

Page ! 6.

G000128

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 21 of 30

limit of 5.0 mg/!. Additionally, material pH analyses performed .on each of the candidate treated materials indicates that all materials were classified as non-corrosive for disposal in a landfill. Specifically, the material pH of all of the treated materials ranged from 3.92 to 9.28 s.u., which is within the RCRA non-corrosive hazard classification range of 2.5 to 12.5 s.u. Based on thes~ results and potential cost effectiveness, the optimum treatment design would consist of the addition of phosphoric acid solution. Note that the mixtures developed with phosphoric acid solution reduced the concentration of leachable lead to as low as 0.0797. mg/L. These results indicate that since the leachable lead concentrations are significantly lower than the TCLP criteria, the addition rate or concentration ofphosptioric acid solution may be further optimized and still achieve the TCLP regulatory limits.

3033/3033_102

Page 17

G000129

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 22 of 30

DISCLAIMER

When performing treatability studies, Kiber Environmental Services, Inc. is typically provided with samples from a given site. These samples usually have been collected by site personnel and are intended to be representative of site materials. The treatability study, however,, is only as accurate as the sample taken in the field. Since Kiber has no control over the sample colIection, .the results of the study are assumed to be only estimations of the anticipated results. K_iber has applied our best technical and scientific knowledge to the performance of the work under the economic parameters of this study. The information contained in this report in no way guarantees the same results in full-scale adaptation, and is only meant to be used as a guideline for operational procedures. Furthermore, the study period defined by the client limit~ the evaluations of technologies to a specified time frame. K.iber can evaluate the technologies based on this time frame~ however, we cannot comment on the long term effects.

3033/3033_102.

Page 18

GO00130

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 23 of 30

QKiBF'R
ENVIRONMENTAL

TABLES

GO00131

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 24 of 30

KIBER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY

TABLE I Untreated Material Characterization Summary of Total and TCLPLead Analyses - EPA Methods 1311/6010B (Stockpile Materials)
ANALYTICAL PARAMETER I. CHEMICAL PARAMETERS Total Lead TCLP Lead
Below Detectable Limits
3033_204

CTS-001

CTS-002

UNIT mgikg mg/L

Conc.

DL

Conc.

DL

943
.~;~

0.707 0.0159

8,660 28.2

4.3.

0.0159

o o o

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 25 of 30

KIBER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY

TABLE 2 Untreated Material Characterization Summary of Analytical and Geotechnical Characterization (Spiked Composite Materials) ANALYTICAL PARAMETER. I. CHEMICAL PARAMETERS Total Lead TCLP Lead Material pH 11. PHYSICAL PARAMETERS Moisture Content, Dry Basis Bulk Density Bulk Specific Gravity
(1) A, B and C represent triplicate analyses. Not Applicable or Not Analyzed
3033_205

SPIKED COMPOSITE.. ~! 1
A B

SPIKED COMPOSITE #2

C

A

B

mg/kg

2,66018.7 8.0 17 124 2.0
17 124 2~0
17 124 2.0

3,440 32.9 7.8 16 120 1.9

7.9 16 121 1.9

% lbs/ft3 lbs/ft3

121

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 26 of 30

KIBER ENV~ONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY

TABLE 3 Preliminary Stabilization Treatment Summary of Mixture Development and Monitoring KIBER SAMPLE No. 3033-001 3033-002 3033-003 3033-004 3033-005 3033-006 3033-007
REAGENT WATER ADDITION

REAGENT " TYP .E._(O ....
Type I Portland Cement Hydrated Lime Hydrated Lime Class "C" Fly Ash Class "C" Fly Ash Ferrous Sulfate / 20% Phosphoric Acid Ferrous Sulfate / Sodium Carbonate (41

ADDITION

PENETROMETER TESTING (ton~:!ft2) ....... 1 Day
0.5

,., .... (%) ~2~ ..
5 5 ¯ . 10
20 "~

2 Day

7 Day
1.5 1.0 <0.5 <0,5 0.5 <0.5 < 0.5 1.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.5 0.5 <0.5 <0.5

5 5 10 10 20 0 10

1.0 0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <0.5 <.0.5 <.0.5

0.5
<0.5 <0.5 <0.5 < 0.5 <0.5

5110
201 10

Mixtures were developed by Slurrying the reagent with the specified amount ofwater prior to addition to the mixture unless otherwise specified. . . .... ...: .... For a mixture with 5% reagent addition and 5% water addition, 10 grams of the reagent was slurried with 10 grams of water and added to 200 grams of untreated material.~.:". o) Phosphoric acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate was added dry to the mixture. Initially, Kiber developed a 50% ferrous sulfate slurry which was added to the untreated aliquot and blended¯ After homogenous the specified addition rate ofsodium carbonate was added to the mixture and blended. ,
3033_206

o o o

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 27 of 30

KIBER ENVIRONMENT~ SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLE 4 Preliminary Stabilization Treatment Summary of Mixture Development and Monitoring KIBER SAMPLE No~ 3033-008 3033-009 3033-010 3033-011 3033-012 3033-013 3033-014
(I} (2) (3) (4)

REAGENT ..... TYPE Type I Portland Cement Hydrated Lime Hydrated Lime Class "C" Fly Ash Class "C" Fly Ash Ferrous Sulfate / 20% Phosphoric Acid (3) Ferrous Sul fate / Sodium Carbonate(4)

REAGENT ADDITION

WATER ADDITION

,,
5 5 10 lO ~,--. 20
5110

PENETROMETER TESTING (tons/ft2) .... 1 Day ,} 2 Day 3 Day 7 Day <0.5 ' < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 <0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 1.0 1.5 <0.5 < 0.5 1.0 <0.5 <0.5 1.0 1,5 < 0.5 <0.5 2.0 < 0.5 < 0.5 1.0 1.5 < 0.5 " < 0.5

7.5 10 15 7,5 10 0 10

2o/~o

Mixtures \yore developed by slurrying the reagent with the specified amount of water prior to addition to the mixture unless otherwise specified. For a mixture with 5% reagent addition and 5% water addition, I 0 grams of the reagent was slurried with 10 grams of water and added to 200 grams of untrcaled material. Phosphoric acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate was added dry to the mixture. Initially, Kiber developed a 50% ferrous sulfate slurry which was added to the untreated aliquot and blended. After homogenous the specified addilion rate of sodium carbonate was added to the mixture and blended.

3033_208

o o o

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 28 of 30

KIBER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY

TABLE 5 Preliminary Stabilization Treatment Summary of Total and.TCLP Lead Analyses - EPA Methods 1311/6010B KIBER SAMPLE No. 3033-008 3033-009 3033-010 3033-011 3033-012 3033-013 3033-014 REAGENT ADDITION WATER ADDITION
TOTAL LEAD ,,, (mg/kg) (s)
ColIc.

#"

TCLP LEAD ..... (rag/L) (s)
Conc.

REAGENT ............ TYPE (1) ...... Type I Portland Cement Hydrated Lime Hydrated Lime Class "C" Fly Ash Class "C" Fly Ash Ferrous Sulfate / 20% Phosphoric Acid Ferrous Sulfate / Sodium Carbonate (4)

,,,(%) (2), , ....
5 5" 10 10 2O 5/10 20110

(%) ~2)
7.5 10 15 7.5 10 0 10

DL 0.929 0.962 0.898 0.884 0.917 0.912 0.898

2,350 2,090 2,670 1,980 16,400 1,960 2,040

21.4 15.4 4.41 9.13 7.02 0.525 5.26

0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0~59 0.0159

(3) Phosphoric acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate was added dry to the mixture. (4) Initially, Kiber developed a 50% ferrous sulfate slurry which was added to the untreated aliquot and blended. After homogenous the specified addition rate of sodium carbonate was added to the mixture and-blended. (5) Total and TCLP lead analyses were performed after curing for a period of 7 days.
3033_209

o o o F-~

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 29 of 30

IrdBER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLE 6 Candidate Stabilization Treatment Summary of Mixture Development and Monitoring KIBER SAMPLE No. 3033-015 3033-016 3033-017 3033-018 3033-019 3033-020 3033-021
(I) (2) (3) (4) (5) ......... TYPE 0) REAGENT REAGENT ADDITION

PENETROMETER TESTING (tons/ft2)

VOLUMETPdC EXPANSION

Agricultural Lime Agricilltural Lime
20% Phosphoric Acid Solution

15 20 5 10

4.0 4.0 <0.5 <0.5 < 0.5 <0.5 <0.5

14 22 11 33 11 37 21

20% Phosphoric Acid Solution

5/1 " 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution / Ferrous Sulfate (3) 10/2.5/15 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution / Ferrous Sulfate / Fly Ash 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution/Ferrous Sulfate /Fly Ash o) 5/2.5/15

Mixtures were developed by slurrying the reagent with the specified amount of water prior to addition to the mixture unless otherwise specified. For a mixture with 5% reagent addition, 10 grams of reagent was added to 200 grams of untreated material. Phosphoric acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate was added dry to the mixture. Phosphoric acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate and fly ash was added dry to the mixture. Volumetric Expansion and penetrometer testing were perfomed immediately following mixture development. A positive number for volumetric expansion denotes expansion, a negative number denotes shrinkage.

3033_212

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-3

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 30 of 30

KIBER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. ICF KAISER ENGINEERS, INC. COLONIE SITE TREATABILITY STUDY TABLE7 Candidate Stabilization Treatment Summary of Total and TCLP Lead Analyses - EPA Methods 1311/6010B
#"

KIBER SAMPLE No. 3033-015 3033-016 3033-017 3033-018 3033-019 3033-020 3033-021 P~AGENT TYPE Agricultural Lime Agricultural Lime 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution / Ferrous Sulfate {3) 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution / Ferrous Sulfate / Fly Ash {4) 20% Phosphoric Acid Solution / Ferrous Sulfate / Fly Ash {4}

REAGENT ADDITION

TOTAL LEAD
(mg/kg) o) DL ......Conc. 3,040 1,750 2,050 t,580 2,530 2,210 1,660

TCLP LEAD

!vI~TERIAL
pH

(%) ~2)
15 20 5 10 1012.5 ! 15 5/2.5/15

Cone.
22.1 10.8 0.330 0.0797 0.441 0.0362 0A58 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 .0.0159

(s.u.) O)
9.03 9.28 4.90 3.92 4.87 8.12 9.15

0.809 0.816 0.860 0.933 0.898 0,918 0.864

(2) For a mixture with 5% reagent addition, I0 grams of reagent was added to 200 grm'ns of untreated material. Phosphoi'ie acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate was added dry to the mixture. Phosphoric acid was added first and blended. After mixing, ferrous sulfate and fly ash was added dry to the mixture. Total lead, TCLP lead and material pH analyses were performed immediately after mixture development
3033_211